Science is often motivated, or if you prefer inspired, by ideology.
That's why Darwinism gained greater credence during the essentially European Market Revolution. Scientists are people after all, and most people could both assimilate and understand the idea of progress through trial.
It's interesting, then, to note the motivation for the Multiverse postulate.
You see a Multiverse is the opposite of a Universe. It is an idea, which says that our Universe is but one of a multitude of such Universes.
If Scientist are serious about entertaining this idea then shouldn't they as a matter of rule engineer a suitable test? Isn't that what Scientists are supposed to do?
But wouldn't such a test, if it existed, rule out the idea of a Multiplicity of "Closed Boxed" Universes?
Since by definition they would then no longer be CLOSED boxes.
And so they cannot.
Then why entertain an IDEA which at roots is NOT SCIENTIFIC?
Well the answer lies in this fact:
"He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?
Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out."
At every point from the Anthropic Principle; which sensibly suggests that the laws of Nature that were in prominence from even less than a microsecond after the Big Bang must account for our (cognisant and rational beings') existence; to the Sciences that cannot find any flaw;
The guardian/ sun is the most perfect natural sphere.
; the World that we inhabit is perfect.
For Scientists that entertain the Multiverse postulate it is in fact TOO PERFECT.
In fact it's so perfect that they are forced to assume an untestable idea of a near infinite number of other Universes where the law of Nature and Physics do NOT produce cognisant beings like us, and do NOT produce a perfect Universe that we see around us. And then Our Universe is just one single of a Multitude of other Universes.
Doesn't it just make you laugh.
That in order to avoid admitting the perfection of creation that they would go to such lengths.
And in order to avoid the then obvious admission that there must be a PERFECT Creator and Designer they would also go to such lengths.
And to deny those things they would appeal to something even remoter and even more infinitely more unlikely than a Single CREATOR.
So it all really boils down to you.
You DO THE MATHS and work out the likelihoods:
A single CREATOR who sent countless Messengers and Prophets to proclaim His Truth and Oneness.
A near infinite number of Universes each with their own Physical Laws and Cosmic Constants.
And of those off course we only need ONE to have the exact right conditions and Laws to sustain cognisant life that can account for our existence, and also create a Universe which is absolutely perfect in every way.
And that the rest of those Universes, that we cannot see, are DEAD. Lifeless and full of nothing of significance.
I know where I'd lay my bet.
Especially if my life depended on it.
YOU CHOOSE !!!!!
Location:CERN Labs, I wished.